GOP losing clarity on foreign policy

Graphics

The presidency of Barack Obama has, for the most part, been a source of intellectual clarity for the Republican Party. During the tenure of George W. Bush, the Grand Old Party was stuck in a philosophical muddle, paying lip service to limited government in abstract terms, while repeatedly expanding the role of the state in everything from education to health care to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

By the end of Bush's tenure, however, this had created a sort of intellectual fatigue within the party. By the time that Obama, unchecked by any philosophical misgivings about expanding government, came around, the GOP had had enough. What followed was a conservative retreat back to the limited-government principles that animated the likes of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, giving rise to the Tea Party movement in the process.

On foreign policy, however, the equation is precisely the opposite. Bush's deviations from conventional conservatism on domestic matters were met with minimal resistance from within the party partially because Republicans were unified behind his aggressive response to the threat of terrorism. Today, there's nothing approaching consensus within the GOP on how to approach America's role in the world.

Credit for this development goes largely to Obama, who has proven remarkably adept at reading public sentiment on America's engagements overseas. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan enjoyed widespread public support at their inception, when they were framed as missions to protect vital national security interests. As time passed, and both missions began to focus on the less-imperative priority of fostering consensual governments, the American public began to question whether they were worth the price.

Those doubts have now seeped in on the Republican side as well. When the president announced in his State of the Union speech Tuesday that 34,000 troops would be returning from Afghanistan in the next year and that the war would be concluding, there were plenty of Republicans joining in the standing ovation. Moreover, a Washington Post poll showed 80 percent of the public on the president's side.

This trend holds up on a wide variety of issues. Conservatives may have mocked the “leading from behind” approach that the administration took in Libya, allowing European forces to do most of the heavy lifting, but the upshot was Moammar Gadhafi deposed on the cheap. They may scrutinize the use of drones to take out terrorist targets, but they allow Obama to maintain a hawkish posture without dirtying his hands with the unpleasantness of prisoner interrogations (a solution that's likely costing the U.S. valuable intelligence). They may have tried to diminish the credit Obama deserved for the death of Osama bin Laden, but it made them look small in a moment of national triumph. Even the Benghazi debacle didn't stick to the White House. On foreign policy, this president seems to be Teflon.

This creates a dilemma for a Republican Party that has traditionally had to exert little effort to convince the public that it's far better equipped to handle threats from abroad than a liberal establishment that seems ashamed of American influence. Today, with a Democratic president, the two major wars of the past decade are winding down, the world's foremost terrorist mastermind is dead, and counterterrorism is being handled from 10,000 feet. There are not a lot of readily apparent Republican talking points in there.

As potential Republican presidential hopefuls begin to look towards 2016, many seem acutely aware of this vulnerability. Last April, Sen. Marco Rubio gave a major address at the Brookings Institution, attempting to make a case for a more robust foreign policy approach that didn't summon the memory of the Bush years. Last week, Sen. Rand Paul addressed the conservative Heritage Foundation, promoting a foreign policy that pursues a middle ground between Rubio's approach and that of the more isolationist camp most famously represented by Paul's father, former Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

These speeches anticipate questions that will continue to divide the GOP in coming years. Do America's financial constraints invite a reconsideration of the scope of our involvement overseas? Is the practice of nation-building a vital step toward ensuring global stability or an exercise in the sort of government hubris that conservatives usually disdain? Which international threats can be handled through containment and which demand a more forceful response?

Until the Republican Party answers these questions for itself, it will be hard-pressed to offer a compelling alternative to a Democratic foreign policy that – whatever its defects – seems to be winning the day with the American public.

User Agreement

Keep it civil and stay on topic. No profanity, vulgarity, racial
slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about
tragedies will be blocked. By posting your comment, you agree to
allow Orange County Register Communications, Inc. the right to
republish your name and comment in additional Register publications
without any notification or payment.